Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Sexual content in tv, movies, and society.

CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:56:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is something I found more suitable for a discussion rather than debate. I want to know your opinions on the sexual content in even the more easily accessible forms of media such as music, tv, movies, and even video games.

Personally, I believe it is suitable for media to continue on just as they are without those long and sometimes graphic and driven out sex scenes. Even music meant for teenagers has some pretty vulgar language and lyrics. Back in the day, sex ed wasn't even considered, it was a discussion between a father and son, mother and daughter at a coming of age. But now with how common of a subject and even socially accepted, we have more issues psychologically, abortion is now accepted socially, and STDs are becoming more and more lethal as well as more and more people have them.

How is it such atrocities become so common and socially acceptable in society? What can people do to reverse this terrible flow to a more appropriate society where sexual interactions go back to it's origins and after marriage with your spouse only?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 12:05:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"This Film is Not Yet Rated" points out that as a result of prudishness in the US, combined with pressure from Hollywood to allow *something* interesting into movies, the US market is saturated with *violence* in movies. In contrast, UK censorship focuses much more on violence and much less on sex. Overall, probably a healthier atmosphere for children.

Great movie. Watch it.

If you link to a single study proving that teenage pregnancy and STD virulence is linked to sex in media, then I'll eat my hat. Most studies show the opposite. Sheltering children from sex (e.g. abstinence only education) is more likely to lead to both. Children exposed to sex are more likely to view it in a more healthy way and to use protection.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 12:32:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's another thing. Using protection? It's not a matter of how safe it is, it's how the morals have decreased. A time ago, it was rare for someone to even consider sex before marriage, and it was only with that person's spouse.

I am a living example. I was never exposed to sex or anything. When I asked the questions, dad explained and I learned in proper time. I did not learn at 12 however, that is ridiculously young. I have no desire to pursue sex or whatever, and if I do it will not happen until I am married.

Anyway, as I stated, I meant this to be a discussion, not a debate over whether or not media is what directly influences these moral declines. Yes, I made a remark directing to media, but I didn't claim it was the core cause.

The cause of these moral declines is that we as human beings have given up trying to keep moral standards high enough to know what the physics of sex is and how it is properly used and when it is a proper time. We use to keep ourselves until marriage. Now we run about having sex with anyone who catches our eye and arouses us. We have declined to a state of reproduction that is simply animal like and primitive.

If things were as people claim that it's perfectly normal, then why have things only gotten worse?
buelg
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 12:41:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the only way to say is this: having sexual content in tv, and movies is the broadcasting system's way to survive. Since so many adults like those, they would get more attention if they involve sexual contents in medias. As for kids, however, they are still immature and believe what they see is what they should do. That's why some kids who enjoyed watching those medias grows up to be sex offenders.

As long as it doesn't disturb children's minds, sexual content should be involved in medias.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 10:50:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 12:32:35 AM, CaptJack92a wrote:
There's another thing. Using protection? It's not a matter of how safe it is, it's how the morals have decreased. A time ago, it was rare for someone to even consider sex before marriage, and it was only with that person's spouse.

I am a living example. I was never exposed to sex or anything. When I asked the questions, dad explained and I learned in proper time. I did not learn at 12 however, that is ridiculously young. I have no desire to pursue sex or whatever, and if I do it will not happen until I am married.

Anyway, as I stated, I meant this to be a discussion, not a debate over whether or not media is what directly influences these moral declines. Yes, I made a remark directing to media, but I didn't claim it was the core cause.

The cause of these moral declines is that we as human beings have given up trying to keep moral standards high enough to know what the physics of sex is and how it is properly used and when it is a proper time. We use to keep ourselves until marriage. Now we run about having sex with anyone who catches our eye and arouses us. We have declined to a state of reproduction that is simply animal like and primitive.

If things were as people claim that it's perfectly normal, then why have things only gotten worse?

Society as a whole is leaning more and more toward the conclusion that sex is not immoral. Who are you to decide what is moral or not?

And here's a newsflash, teenagers have always had sex. Do you really think teenagers in the 50's were abstinent?
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 10:57:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why so defensive?
You kind of disproved yourself...
Who are you to decide whether or not I am allowed to have an opinion on moral values?
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 11:08:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 10:50:43 AM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:32:35 AM, CaptJack92a wrote:
There's another thing. Using protection? It's not a matter of how safe it is, it's how the morals have decreased. A time ago, it was rare for someone to even consider sex before marriage, and it was only with that person's spouse.

I am a living example. I was never exposed to sex or anything. When I asked the questions, dad explained and I learned in proper time. I did not learn at 12 however, that is ridiculously young. I have no desire to pursue sex or whatever, and if I do it will not happen until I am married.

Anyway, as I stated, I meant this to be a discussion, not a debate over whether or not media is what directly influences these moral declines. Yes, I made a remark directing to media, but I didn't claim it was the core cause.

The cause of these moral declines is that we as human beings have given up trying to keep moral standards high enough to know what the physics of sex is and how it is properly used and when it is a proper time. We use to keep ourselves until marriage. Now we run about having sex with anyone who catches our eye and arouses us. We have declined to a state of reproduction that is simply animal like and primitive.

If things were as people claim that it's perfectly normal, then why have things only gotten worse?

Society as a whole is leaning more and more toward the conclusion that sex is not immoral. Who are you to decide what is moral or not?

And here's a newsflash, teenagers have always had sex. Do you really think teenagers in the 50's were abstinent?

For most of human history, you either had sex as a teenager or you died as a virgin. Really, this idea that teenage sex is in anyway wrong is so localized and such a recent idea compared to the entire longevity of human existence that it can barely be said to have existed at all.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:41:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 11:37:47 AM, CaptJack92a wrote:
So, STDs just happened to begin taking effect now?

As Wikipedia would say, "citation needed."

Let's compare to the distant past. Certain STD's were not treatable back then (like gonorrhea and syphilis) and not well known. In 1950, syphillis was 5 times more prevalent than it was today. [sources: http://www2.hu-berlin.de...; http://wonder.cdc.gov...]. Gonorrhea was twice as prevalent in 1950 than today, and 10 times more prevalent in 1980.

Public education campaigns and antibiotics have done a great deal to decrease their prevalence and dangerousness. However, STDs of new vintage (HIV and chlamydia) have taken their place in prevalence and dangerousness. HIV is arguably more dangerous than syphilis (although the latter completely screws up your brain), and chlamydia easier to spread since it rarely manifests external symptoms. It is treatable, but most people don't realize they have it. So STD's are evolving.

Do people have premarital sex more often today?

No. A study by Lawrence Finer found that people are *no more likely* to have premarital sex today than in 1950 [source: http://scienceblogs.com...], which means people in 1950 were just as freaky. They just kept it on the down low.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:50:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, this is a discussion on moral standards, not a statistical comparison or debate in itself.

So far what has happened in this thread is that all of you have come together against me in defense of sexual immorality. Saying that you all agree it is good to experiment, mix, expose early? With the heavy reliance on Other people's 'statistics' to back you up and obviously no moral grounds for this discussion you so far have replied fruitlessly.

Again: I did not start this discussion to be a debate over whether or not it is statistically better, to bash each other with sources and links and statistics. It is a comparison of moral standard and clarification as to why choosing the so called 'statistics' over true values is the better.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 12:32:35 AM, CaptJack92a wrote:

The cause of these moral declines is that we as human beings have given up trying to keep moral standards high enough to know what the physics of sex is and how it is properly used and when it is a proper time. We use to keep ourselves until marriage. Now we run about having sex with anyone who catches our eye and arouses us. We have declined to a state of reproduction that is simply animal like and primitive.

If things were as people claim that it's perfectly normal, then why have things only gotten worse?

The idea that "things have gotten worse" is usually a glorification of the 1950's as a time of chastity, but really the subtle undertone is, "when women were in their rightful place." If you watch Mad Men, it is a pretty accurate depiction of the 50's and 60's. Women had pre-marital sex just as often, but were shamed by society for it.

The idea that we have "baser" urges and we have to fight those is stupid. To deny your true instincts even exist is to deny a basic part of yourself (like gay men who lie to themselves about their fantasies about other men). I have the urges to eat, sleep, and have sex. What do I gain by suppressing any of those?

I have more to say. But without invoking God, explain to me why it is morally wrong for me to have sex with another consenting adults if we use protection. Who does it hurt?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:58:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 1:50:48 PM, CaptJack92a wrote:
Again, this is a discussion on moral standards, not a statistical comparison or debate in itself.

So far what has happened in this thread is that all of you have come together against me in defense of sexual immorality. Saying that you all agree it is good to experiment, mix, expose early? With the heavy reliance on Other people's 'statistics' to back you up and obviously no moral grounds for this discussion you so far have replied fruitlessly.

Again: I did not start this discussion to be a debate over whether or not it is statistically better, to bash each other with sources and links and statistics. It is a comparison of moral standard and clarification as to why choosing the so called 'statistics' over true values is the better.

Why are statistics and morality mutually exclusive? From a utilitarian perspective, the impacts of moral choices are paramount, and statistics are very much pertinent to the discussion of whether or not a particular action is moral. You are just shrinking from defending your indefensible ideals by moving the goalposts every time a certain argument of yours is demolished.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:58:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 1:50:48 PM, CaptJack92a wrote:
Again, this is a discussion on moral standards, not a statistical comparison or debate in itself.

So far what has happened in this thread is that all of you have come together against me in defense of sexual immorality. Saying that you all agree it is good to experiment, mix, expose early? With the heavy reliance on Other people's 'statistics' to back you up and obviously no moral grounds for this discussion you so far have replied fruitlessly.

Again: I did not start this discussion to be a debate over whether or not it is statistically better, to bash each other with sources and links and statistics. It is a comparison of moral standard and clarification as to why choosing the so called 'statistics' over true values is the better.

(1) *You* made the claim things were getting worse as proof that our movement away from Puritanism in sexual values has harmed society. *You* attempted to use a claim about the current state of the world to back up your normative judgments. *I* was simply proving you wrong.

(2) Stop playing the victim. I don't really see anyone but me going against you, and regardless, if you wanted a "discussion" but didn't want people to disagree, then that basically means you just wanted your beliefs re-affirmed. Go to Christian Mingle or the Fox News comments section if that's what you want.

(3) If you're gonna put statistics in quotes, you're not worth discussing this with. "Facts" are facts, whether you put them in quotes or not. You're basically invoking "truthiness," which is what Colbert makes fun of constantly - the idea that "oh, well, your statistics mean nothing to me because my gut tells me that your statistics can't possibly be true - people ARE more promiscuous today than in the 1950s. They just *have* to be. Because otherwise, my belief system comes crashing now. Cognitive dissonance, etc etc."

(4) On the moral front, John Stuart Mill's articulated the harm principle, that actions are only morally wrong if they cause harm. Safe sex harms no one. Therefore, it is not morally wrong. Your turn to justify why safe pre-marital sex is morally wrong.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Without involving God...?

Even if I was planning on bringing religion into this argument, which I did not originally intend, that would literally be a complete disregard for the very basis of this topic and it's point.

OBVIOUSLY I stepped into this website thinking there would intelligent conversation and reasonable people to discuss with. But so far this topic has evolved into slamming me and my moral principles because you can't get what you learned in school set aside to actually develop your own individual conscience. But no, it is better to keep this mode because you have ONE non-essential urge that you claim is 'base' which is also a further debatable concept, and continue believing this because it allows you to indulge yourself in sexual activity.

Also, I have not yet developed any respect for anyone's credibility here since so far it's either a comic character, and old lady eating a child, and an apparent man with the image of a woman representing him.

I am not going to entertain the thought of trying to defend myself from people who only with to slam me rather than discuss and compare as I repeatedly keep trying to get back to.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:03:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh and it's not sex in movies that makes people want to have sex. It's puberty. And the survival instinct. It's naive to think that such an important instinct is non-existent and sex is caused by a simple "monkey see, monkey do" reaction to simulated television sex, that doesn't even show you enough mechanics to really even know how it's done.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:08:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again you keep attacking ideals and what not that I have only given for either example. Clearly no one here knows what exactly what I started this topic for and it has diminished into something I never intended it to turn into.

This forum is full of pure liberal values in which no structural moral standard can be established on a mutual ground of discussion and therefore I am done here.

And stop trying to say I keep deflecting when I am "beaten", I am not even trying to argue whether or not... No screw it never mind. No one is truly listening.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 2:01:39 PM, CaptJack92a wrote:
Without involving God...?

Even if I was planning on bringing religion into this argument, which I did not originally intend, that would literally be a complete disregard for the very basis of this topic and it's point.

OBVIOUSLY I stepped into this website thinking there would intelligent conversation and reasonable people to discuss with. But so far this topic has evolved into slamming me and my moral principles because you can't get what you learned in school set aside to actually develop your own individual conscience. But no, it is better to keep this mode because you have ONE non-essential urge that you claim is 'base' which is also a further debatable concept, and continue believing this because it allows you to indulge yourself in sexual activity.

Also, I have not yet developed any respect for anyone's credibility here since so far it's either a comic character, and old lady eating a child, and an apparent man with the image of a woman representing him.

I am not going to entertain the thought of trying to defend myself from people who only with to slam me rather than discuss and compare as I repeatedly keep trying to get back to.

You have yet to articulate *why* it is wrong to have pre-marital sex. I'm not sure you understand the word "discussion." American Heritage: discussion = to talk with others in an effort to ascertain truth, or to convince. So, convince me... Instead of just whining about your moral superiority.

And yes, without invoking God. I want a better argument than, "cuz the Bible says so." That is circular. Why does the Bible say so? What makes the Bible a source of moral authority, given that it glorifies slavery, genocide, rape, and child murder. I've generally found that most atheists on this site have read more of the Bible than the people claiming to invoke its morality.

Regardless, if you don't want to frankly discuss your belief system, then get out. Go find a site where everyone will just agree with you.

There's a difference between attacking a person and attacking his or her argument. The fact that your "argument" is so central to your identity and your entire belief system is your issue, and it means you didn't really want to "discuss" because you were never going to change your mind. If you just came here to proselytize, this is most definitely the wrong site for you.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:12:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 2:08:40 PM, CaptJack92a wrote:
Again you keep attacking ideals and what not that I have only given for either example.

Do don't attack ideals (i.e. morality, philosophical discussion), and don't attack examples (statistics, empirical, real world, utilitarian, as applied discussions). So don't discuss.

You really haven't said anything. You've asserted pre-marital sex is morally wrong. You haven't said why. And you've asserted that STD's are becoming more prevalent, which is simply empirically false.

It's not that I'm not listening. You're just not saying anything. You're just whining.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:14:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God again? I still have yet to even confirm if I am even religious.
Don't treat me like an idiot. It's really sad to resort to such lashes, and clearly a demonstration of immaturity.
Still no one knows the basis of the reasoning behind me starting this thread.

I'll give you three guesses and no it's not involving any God character.
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:16:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have explained myself about 3 or 4 separate times, the fact that you think you can't grasp it is because you think this discussion is about something entirely different.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:38:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 2:16:16 PM, CaptJack92a wrote:
I have explained myself about 3 or 4 separate times, the fact that you think you can't grasp it is because you think this discussion is about something entirely different.

Your "explanations" are just assertions and question begging. For the 4th time, justify why pre-marital sex is morally wrong.

The point of this thread is to argue that sex in movies is bad because it increases pre-marital sex. You are wrongly assuming that there is a correlation (whereas, actual data shows no increase in the prevalence of pre-marital sex since the invention of the television) and you're wrongly assuming that "loosening up" the US's puritanical attitude towards sex is bad.

And yes, it's not nice to assume that all uneducated people who put the word "statistics" in quotes and simply assert that their morals are superior with no justification are religious. It's just that it's always the case. Very few other people home school or send their kids to a religious school that teaches them that statistics and science are wrong and that they can have a moral "discussion" without actually delving any deeper in their beliefs than "well, sex is wrong." *all heads nod* yay, I discussed. 5 gold stars from the teacher.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:45:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
CaptJack, I don't see anyone "attacking ideals" or "slamming" your moral principles. This is how forums on DDO generally are and the people who are disagreeing with you are doing so cordially as well as convincingly. I don't get why you are claiming that you are being attacked. If you disagree with statistics, you need to explain why and whether the methods of collecting those statistics were flawed and if so, in what way. Merely dismissing them out of hand isn't "discussion."
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:46:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To go back to your OP

At 5/9/2013 11:56:31 AM, CaptJack92a wrote:
This is something I found more suitable for a discussion rather than debate. I want to know your opinions on the sexual content in even the more easily accessible forms of media such as music, tv, movies, and even video games.

I like it. It makes all those things more interesting.

Personally, I believe it is suitable for media to continue on just as they are without those long and sometimes graphic and driven out sex scenes.

Um, your version of movies sounds boring. Game of Thrones without the sex scenes wouldn't be Game of Thrones. Neither would Wedding Crashers, Meet the Fockers, or many other shows or movies.

Back in the day, sex ed wasn't even considered, it was a discussion between a father and son, mother and daughter at a coming of age.

This is why STD prevalence declined a great deal after the 50's was due to sex education. No discussion with kids about sex usually meant they had sex anyway, but without protection, or thinking about whether they wanted it to be with that person.

But now with how common of a subject and even socially accepted, we have more issues psychologically, abortion is now accepted socially

yup, you're definitely religious. I'll debate you on abortion. I wouldn't say it's "accepted," or "encouraged." The goal is to decrease unwanted pregnancy. Which abstinence only education (or television) doesn't do. But no baby is better than an unwanted baby, and the state conscripting women's bodies for its own purposes.

and STDs are becoming more and more lethal as well as more and more people have them.

wrong. And the lethality (like of HIV) has nothing to do with how often people have sex. It has to do with *gasp* evolution, something you don't believe in.

How is it such atrocities become so common and socially acceptable in society? What can people do to reverse this terrible flow to a more appropriate society where sexual interactions go back to it's origins and after marriage with your spouse only?

Your Puritan view of the 1950's is a mindset that purports to put women on a pedestal of chastity, but really seeks to keep them in a cage. -Supreme Court Justice Brennan.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 2:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You know, it's ironic CaptnJack. Personally, I don't mind if you want to wait until marriage. I think your choice of sexual practices is your business, not mine.

You don't seem to agree. You want to involve yourself in other people's sex lives and have your morality dictate what they can and cannot do.

So it's ironic to me that you think I'm not respectful of your beliefs. My viewpoint is the one that is more respectful of everyone's beliefs.

If waiting until marriage is the best thing for you and your partner, do it.

Just don't tell me what's right for me.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 3:07:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The media is not to blame. What they show is largely based on demand from individuals rather than breaking a norm. People want sex scenes in movies, and they end up there. Violence is another issue totally disconnected to the media. I do dislike fornication, and often due to what it is associated with, not just because it happens to be pre-marital sex. I think any strong union between the man and woman means they are as well-off with sexual relations together as a married couple. Nonetheless - the individuals can probably make the most practical choices for themselves in the long term.

And sex education is better for society than silence on the matter. May I remind you -- as others seem to have done -- that your views will get criticized here. It's not a place for people to agree, but argue.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 3:10:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Violence is another issue totally disconnected to the media." I must add -- exceptions probably exist. That's just not the general picture.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:56:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 2:01:39 PM, CaptJack92a wrote:

Also, I have not yet developed any respect for anyone's credibility here since so far it's either a comic character, an old lady eating a child, and an apparent man with the image of a woman representing him.

It's actually an Asian man, but I have no idea what that has to do with my credibility. I chose the pic for its shock value.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
CaptJack92a
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 6:55:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alright fine, I admit this did not go anywhere near what I expected, but I guess it's best to have one of these kinds of discussions in person. Never on a forum.

I'll drop it. But there's still a huge misunderstanding in what the original intent was for this topic.

I also apologize for where I seem to lash out. But it's no where near as small as just a pet peeve of mine that when people even make the smallest or even unconscious remarks that can come across as a personal insult. This becomes my weakness and does not always allow me to think rationally about what you might have originally meant and so to respond negatively.

Now that I've spent a few hours at work and stepped away from the conversation I can view it in a different light. If it's all the same to the rest of you. I would rather start over.